Sizes of Old HollywoodWhenever I do presentations on the History of Fashion in Film, some of the most fascinating facts to audiencesare the sizes of their favorite classic cinema stars. As a result, I put together a chart with many of the actresses we know and love. You'll see that this particular list is organized from shortest to tallest, and it also includes their approximate weight and measurements. These measurements are generally the ones recorded at the peak of their popularity. Sometimes they come from the costume designers themselves, such as Adrian. Some come from the studios' press agents for the movie magazines (often idealized for the public, though close to accurate). Some are simply the best guesses of film historians. And some information I simply haven't found yet.In any case, this list can bring an even greater appreciation for these goddesses. Many of whom seem like giants onscreen; Joan Crawford is one who regularly elicits gasps from audiences when they hear how petite she really was. The illusion was due to the talented production teams--from set designers to clever directors and cinematographers. They of course also included my beloved costume designers, who fixed many a figure flaw in order to turn these actresses into icons.

Height

Name

Weight

Bust

Waist

Hips

4' 11"

Judy Garland

98 - 155

33

22

34

4' 11"

Veronica Lake

98

34

21

33

4' 11" - 5' 2"

Gloria Swanson

5'

Janet Gaynor

98

31.5

23

33

5'

Mary Pickford

33

25

36

5'

Jane Powell

108

33

23

33

5' - 5' 4"

Joan Crawford

112

37

24.5

37

5' 1"

Mae West

121

38

24

38

5' 1" - 5' 3"

Norma Shearer

118

34

25.5

37

5' 1.5"

Jean Harlow

109

34B

25

36

5' 2"

Miriam Hopkins

5' 2"

Debbie Reynolds

109

36

23

37

5' 2"

Shirley Temple

5' 2"

Natalie Wood

120

32B

22

33

5' 2" - 5' 4"

Olivia de Havilland

108

37

23

36

5' 2" - 5 '5"

Louise Brooks

5' 2" - 5' 5.5"

Carole Lombard

120

34

24

34

5' 2" - 5' 4"

Elizabeth Taylor

120

32D

21

36

5' 3"

Jean Arthur

5' 3"

Clara Bow

112

33

24

36.5

5' 3"

Leslie Caron

5' 3"

Bette Davis

34C

21

34

5' 3"

Vivien Leigh

32A

23

33

5' 3" - 5' 4"

Tippi Hedren

110

34C

24

32

5' 3.5"

Lana Turner

110

34

24

34

5' 4"

Ann-Margret

119

35

23

35

5' 4"

Constance Bennett

100

33

26

35.5

5' 4"

Ann Blyth

5' 4"

Bebe Daniels

120

36

27

37

5' 4"

Marion Davies

118

35

27

35.5

5' 4"

Betty Grable

126.5-134

36

24

35

5' 4"

Barbara Stanwyck

108

33.5

23

33.5

5' 4.5"

Claudette Colbert

110

32B

18 - 25

34

5' 4.5"

Marlene Dietrich

130

36

26

33

5' 4.5"

Dolores del Rio

120

33

25

36

5' 4.5"

Ginger Rogers

34

24

35

5' 5"

Joan Bennett

108

33

25

34

5' 5" - 5' 5.5"

Marilyn Monroe

115-150

36C

23

36

5' 5" - 5' 7"

Jane Russell

122

38D

24

36

5' 6"

Cyd Charisse

34.5B

22

37

5' 6"

Catherine Deneuve

135

34D

24

35

5' 6"

Ava Gardner

120

36

23

37

5' 6"

Rita Hayworth

117

36C

24

36

5' 6"

Hedy Lamarr

118

35.5

25

34.5

5' 6"

Myrna Loy

35.5

26.5

33.5

5' 6"

Kim Novak

121

36C

25

37

5' 6"

Raquel Welch

118

37

22.5

35.5

5' 6" - 5' 7"

Loretta Young

5' 6.5"

Greta Garbo

125

36

28

38

5' 6.5"

Rosalind Russell

120

34.5

25.5

36

5' 7"

Brigitte Bardot

125

36B

20

35

5' 7"

Doris Day

36B

25

36

5' 7"

Faye Dunaway

34

25

34

5' 7"

Anita Ekberg

40

24

36

5' 7"

Audrey Hepburn

103

34A

20

34

5' 7"

Grace Kelly

118

34A

24

35

5' 7" - 5' 8.5"

Esther Williams

38

27

34

5' 7" - 5' 9"

Kay Francis

118

33

25.5

35

5' 7.5"

Katharine Hepburn

125

34B

22

33

5' 8"

Lauren Bacall

130

34C

26

34

5' 8"

Sophia Loren

140

38C

24

38

5' 8"

Ali MacGraw

5' 9"

Ingrid Bergman

135

34

24

34

5' 9"

Alexis Smith

128

34

24

36

Feel free to contact me if you can help fill in any of the gaps. I will update the list from time to time for everyone's ongoing reference. If you're interested in the ever-changing ideals of BMI (Body Mass Index) from decade to decade, you can learn more in this interesting article on ThinkDifferently.com.Since people have expressed interest in the sizes of men of classic cinema, I have put together a chart with their heights as well.

Height

Name

5' 2"- 5' 4"

Mickey Rooney

5' 4" - 5' 6"

Alan Ladd

5' 6"

Dustin Hoffman

5' 7"

Bing Crosby

5' 7"

John Garfield

5' 7"

Gene Kelly

5' 7"

Al Pacino

5' 8"

James Dean

5' 8"

David Hemmings

5' 8"

Frank Sinatra

5' 8" - 5' 9"

Humphrey Bogart

5' 9"

Fred Astaire

5' 9"

Kirk Douglas

5' 9"

Marcello Mastroianni

5' 9" - 5' 10"

Marlon Brando

5' 10"

Montgomery Clift

5' 10"

Robert DeNiro

5' 10"

Steve McQueen

5' 10"

Paul Newman

5' 10"

Robert Redford

5' 10"

Spencer Tracy

5' 11"

Glenn Ford

5' 11"

William Holden

5' 11" - 6'

William Powell

6'

Van Heflin

6'

Dick Powell

6'

Tyrone Power

6'

Robert Taylor

6'

Franchot Tone

6' 1"

Melvyn Douglas

6' 1"

Clark Gable

6' 1"

Robert Mitchum

6' 1"

Robert Montgomery

6' 2"

Sean Connery

6' 2"

Errol Flynn

6' 2"

Henry Fonda

6' 2"

James Garner

6' 2"

Cary Grant

6' 2"

Burt Lancaster

6' 2"

Joel McCrae

6' 2" - 6' 4"

Gary Cooper

6' 3"

Fred MacMurray

6' 3"

Gregory Peck

6' 3"

Randolph Scott

6' 3"

James Stewart

6' 4"

Clint Eastwood

6' 4"

John Wayne

Vintage Sizing

Much is made about the fact that Marilyn Monroe was reportedly a size 10. Grace Kelly was, too. But it is important to know that this refers to a vintage size 10. Clothing sizing and silhouettes have both completely changed in the past 70 years, and this often causes a lot of confusion. In order to help your experience with any of your vintage shopping ventures, the following can give you a little understanding about the evolution of fashion over that time.

Let’s first discuss sizing.Once and for all—and ladies, I want you to hear me loud and clear—the sizes attached to clothing are essentially meaningless.There is zero consistency in sizing from year to year.None.I have examined sizing charts for dress patterns from the late 50s all the way through the early 70s, and each year the allowed measurements (for bust, waist, hips, e.g.) have increased. So the sad truth of the matter is that clothing manufacturers have understood our vanity well, and simply made our clothes bigger and bigger while making the sizing on the labels smaller.

Though inconsistent, I can give you at least a general understanding of vintage sizing.A rule of thumb is to double your current numerical dress size and you will have your vintage size.This is close, but still only approximate.

Size 2 today is about a vintage size 8

Size 4 today is about a vintage size 10

Size 6 today is about a vintage size 12

Size 8 today is about a vintage size 16

Size 10 today is about a vintage size 18

Again, sizing charts have rarely stayed the same even from one year to the next.Further, sizing between design houses is also often very different.That remains true today.So the moral of the story is to ignore the size on the label and know your own measurements.Here are guidelines for taking the basics:

Hips Measure around the fullest part of your body at the top of your legs, usually anywhere from 6 to 9 inches below your waist. This video helps you find the right spot.

In any vintage listing, you should be able to learn the measurements of the garment—bust, waist, and hips. Other measurements may also be included, such as skirt length (waist to hem) and sleeve length for the coats.My recommendation is to find garments that will fit you in what you know to be your most difficult to fit area. For many, it’s the bust. My own guide is the usually the waist measurement.

You should never buy any clothes—new or vintage—that are too small for you.They are frequently bought as “incentive” to lose weight, when what they really become is a morale killer and a beautiful dress that just sits in your closet.Better to buy a dress that’s one or even two sizes too big.You should be going to a tailor anyhow, so it really doesn’t matter. Think of it as molding that dress to your body.

Vintage Silhouettes

Silhouettes—the shape of a garment—have also changed through the years along with the sizing.Part of the reason for this is that there are significant differences between how we wear clothes now and the way our mothers and grandmothers wore them.The impact of undergarments alone.Dresses from the early 1950s, for instance, expected there to be a girdle between the woman and the fabric.They were fitted for those cumbersome foundation garments to be worn every minute of every day. It shaped a woman in a very certain and constrained way.Very beautiful. Very exaggerated. It affected the way we moved.

Then comfort started to become more important. Career clothes were improved as more and more women began flooding the workforce.Eventually we even mixed comfort in formal gowns...Halston in the 1970s is a great example.You can see the design arc move gradually from very voluptuous to more streamlined silhouettes.By the late 60s and early 70s, silhouettes stood away from the body rather than hugging it, bustlines were reduced, and shoulders and sleeves narrowed as well.

Each decade designed for its ideal body shape, so you can actually use that to steer your shopping in vintage clothing.

Pear Sheath and A-line dresses of the late 1950s and early 1960s are very flattering on this body type.Also 1950s dresses with those full swinging skirts are wonderfully forgiving of the hips.

Apple The late 1960s and early 1970s offer shift dresses that are perfect for this body type.You want shapes that don’t over emphasize the waist...nor do they hide it either. Not as curvy in cut but not too narrow either. And look for ones that allow you to either feature your bust or your legs. Hemlines went up during this time, so plenty of options.

RectangleStraight 1960s mod styles were tailor-made for this body type. Sleek. Sophisticated. Play with the length (a simple hemline alteration) to have it cut just right on your leg to help you look taller or smaller. Wiggle dresses (see below) are something to consider as well if you're interested in creating a stronger waistline.